The Far-Left Democratic Party and their Obsession with Race

By Roger F. Gay

The Democratic Party expected that having a half-black man in the White House would come with a free Platinum Race Card that would never be questioned. But as the mid-term elections unfold, they're still waiting nervously by the mail box for delivery. Their continuing efforts to get what they can't pay for in fact and reason come off looking more like clumsy caught-on-camera shoplifting attempts at the mall.

Bill Press compared Glenn Beck and attendees at the Restoring Honor Rally to Al Qaeda. He rationalized this bizarre comment on CNN, saying that the Lincoln Memorial, for all Americans, is one of our sacred places, and that he thinks that allowing Glenn Beck to speak there was just as offensive as giving those who carried out the 9/11 attack permission to speak at Ground Zero.

If you're just tuning in, wondering if you'll bother to go to the polls to vote, feeling entirely confused about what that was supposed to mean, let me explain. Press was attempting to wag a racial slur in your face. The Restoring Honor Rally was held on the 47th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's revered I Have a Dream speech, which was also delivered at the Lincoln Memorial.

Still a bit confused? The back story is important. Since Obama entered office, the Democratic Party faithful have gone to extremes to divide the nation along racial lines. In their imaginations, the racial division is now perfectly clear, in everything. (You might think that there was a racial divide to begin with; but that's nothing. It's more like they've been pressing for an all out race war.)

Lincoln presided over the American Civil War, the war that ended slavery. Dr. Martin Luther King was black. His speech is symbolic of the Civil Rights Movement (circa. 1955-1968). Glenn Beck is a white guy who is not a Democrat. (Same as Lincoln, but never mind.) So rather than thinking, you should immediately imagine Glenn Beck as a rampant dedicated racist trampling on the sacred ground of progressive politics.

Progressive politics? Maybe I'm skipping through the long progression of leftist propaganda a bit too quickly. I'll assume that even if you're just crawling out of the crib somewhere near a television, you've felt the vibrations associating Democrats with new (yes, just like soap and toothpaste) and Republicans with old. This superficial marketing ploy has been very effective in the young and female market. (What soap and toothpaste companies already knew.)

New isn't quite the same thing as progressive is it? (You might ask.) We need to probe a little more deeply than a comparison with a soap commercial. Let's get clarification on the talking point from someone who better deserves the title of the the Democratic Party's Joseph Goebbels (or at least his writing staff): Chris Matthews. Listen to this.

What is the argument? You may need to listen again, but it's just as superficial as old verses new. Let me give you a hint. A big, all-powerful federal government is good. The federal government does the right thing. His statement is unconditional. There is no current issue involved, just an event. Don't think. Just imagine that anyone who opposes unconditional federal control, particularly if they support or reference the Constitution, is standing in the way of a better world; crazed and mean-spirited racist punks if you'd like – for the sake of concrete imagery.

Matthews did touch my emotions. References to the civil rights struggle that I grew up in as well as he tend to do that. Matthews did manage to make me feel offended – by him. There is a huge divide between those who led the Civil Rights Movement and the progressive left, including Barack Obama – especially including Barack Obama (yes, even though he's half-black). It is hard to imagine a group more solidly opposed to civil rights than today's Democratic Party – and they really weren't much for it back then either. I am terribly offended by their use of the Civil Rights Movement in their propaganda.

The Civil Rights Movement built its success on lawsuits. Its participants asserted Constitutional rights. When Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they did so to avoid chaos in response to Supreme Court decisions on Constitutionally derived civil rights, and even moreso to claim political credit for something that had to be done to preserve Constitutional order. President Johnson took to the airwaves to address the nation with exactly that in mind, noting that a president from the Democratic Party, known as the party of racism, would sign the bill. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 facilitated cashing in that credit.

The success of the Civil Rights Movement was a triumph of individual rights over the collective that had erected social, legal, economic, and physical barriers to integration. Their success depended directly on our Constitutionally defined three-branch system of government, in which each branch has equal (but separate) power. It required an independent judicial branch with its highest obligation to the Constitution, not to a congress or a president – and definitely not to a political party.

The Democratic Party has and continues to push for a shift in power from Constitutional rule to one in which the political parties have absolute power, concentrated at the top. Barack Obama has made this preference perfectly clear. He has expressed his dissatisfaction with – not merely the results of the Civil Rights Movement – but with the fundamentals; maintaining and asserting individual rights over the power of the collective. (By the way Barack, the United States already has – or did have – the largest wealth redistribution system in the world.)